Solicitors Liverpool, Criminal Defence Specialists – Pearson-Fielding

Andrew Pearson instructed by International Criminal Court

Andrew has just returned from a North African country where in circumstances of significant security he had been instructed to advise a potential suspect in relation to War crimes committed during the conflict in Darfur.

Andrew commented

“This was a hugely rewarding and interesting experience. It necessitated some historical investigation by myself in relation to the background of the Darfur conflict as well as receiving briefings from investigators the ICC.
The personal circumstances in which the interviews were conducted were intriguing to say the least and I eagerly await further developments in relation to my client’s case”.

Pearson Fielding had been retained to act on behalf of the principal defendant implicated in the murder of Joseph Lappin, a cadet in Liverpool. Further details to follow in due course.

Pearson Fielding retained their reputation for being instructed in significant and high profile homicides having now been retained to act for one of the defendants in the murder of Rhys Jones.

Big cases from little Acorns!

This case involved a client who was prosecuted for putting his feet up onto a seat on a railway train. Despite the low level of criminality alleged, this case had significant ramifications in relation to Defence Costs Orders which resulted in us seeking Judicial Review at the Administrative Court.

The outcome of that case, in terms of fees, is significant for all criminal practitioners.

Liverpool Magistrates Court – 2010

We were instructed by a defendant charged with possessing breeding which were prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The client was a vulnerable adult who was supported by…. workers with a National Children’s Charity. In many ways he was isolated from society and purchased a dog without enquiring whether it was of a prohibited breed.

The dog was his touchstone with reality and in his eyes his true companion.

After guilty pleas were entered the matter was adjourned for an all option pre sentence report. The Prosecution were asking for an order ancillary to any sentence that the dog be destroyed.

Our client was dogmatic about the possibility he would go to prison, the idea that his dog be destroyed reduced him to tears.

With the valued assistance of an expert that this practice has dealt with before, we were able to convince the Court that our client should not be disqualified from keeping animals and that the dog (subject to various statutory requirements) not be destroyed. We liaised with our experts and a local animal charity to ensure that our client was given assistance in complying with the statutory requirements.

The case reminded us that the seriousness of many cases lies not in the wording of the charge but in the impact and the consequences for the client.

Pearson Fielding have received instructions to act in a 10 handed payroll fraud which is to be prosecuted in the Midlands.

Andrew Pearson who is instructed in the case commented

“This is a vast case where there is in excess of £27 million allegedly lost to the Treasury. There are 10 defendants in the matter and the case papers are significant.

As a practice we welcome the challenge of grappling with such a vast case and will bring to bear all our skills and that of appropriate forensic accountants in defending this matter vigorously”.

Pearson Fielding have recently had success at the Court of Appeal in relation to the whole concept of legal professional privilege.

Andrew Pearson comments

“It appears to be a popular misconception that where a client waives privilege, as is most often the case, to allow his legal representative to comment upon the interviews at the police station, then there is a misconception that privilege is waived for the case as a whole. We recently took the case of Matthews before the Court of Appeal where the Court indicated, in certain circumstances, that what has been described as “transactional privilege” arises so that the waiver is not all encompassing. We believe that this is a critical case for practitioners when faced with the minefield that waiver can produce, and we are grateful to have had the opportunity to clarify the matter before the Court of Appeal”.

The Authority referred to is Matthews [20006] EWCA Crim 2759

We also draw your attention to the useful article on that very case involving Section 34 and the waiver of privilege authored by Patrick Roche and Julia Dick who were our Counsel in that case. Please refer to Archbold News, Issue 3, April 9th 2008.